Christies Child wrote:What's of importance is that we have a stadium that will deliver revenue day in and day out, rather than a stadium that wil hold 7000 when realistically it will hardly ever be full to capacity.
As and when the time comes for expansion to cater for an increase in spectators on a regular basis, I'm sure that the design of the covered terrace opposite the main stand can be changed to accomodate any increase.
Far better to reduce the original capacity and to retain the importance of the revenue yielding areas than to effectively reduce the stadiums earning capacity just to retain a 7000 capacity stadium.
If this reduction in capacity is to bring the stadium on stream within a defined budget then so be it. I'd rather it came in on budget than create an overspend that would have to be financed once again by the Board.
Far better to have a smaller stadium creating 'one hell of an atmosphere' than large expances of open empty terracing.
Do we really want to emulate the Darlington experience? No thank you!
Surely if they made plans for a 7000 capacity then thats what they must have originally budgeted for and all the other things that bring in day to day revenue .How can the club say they are ambitious when they are building a smaller ground than the one we have already Arsenal moved from a 40,000 capacity to 60,000 and increased their gates , so why cant we. When we played Shrewsbury last season in their nice stadium, it wasn't full but there was still a great atmosphere. Totally ridiculous to compare it with Darlingtons 25,000 seater stadium , half the premier clubs wouldn't fill that place .
